9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oth the units i.e. Yeshwanthpur as well as Doddaballapur are mentioned but in some invoices only the name of Yeshwanthpur unit is mentioned. As per the appellant s case, these services have been used at Doddaballapur unit because the said unit came into operation in 2008 and these input services were used for the said unit after it came into operation. Further as per RG-1 register of Yeshwanthpur factory, the operation was stopped from January 2010 onwards and there was no production and clearance of the goods from the said factory. Further, the invoices produced on record pertain to the services which were availed after the closure of Yeshwanthpur factory which clearly shows that those services were availed by Doddaballapur unit. Furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereby the Commissioner (A) has partially allowed the appeal of the appellant by dropping the demand of ₹ 19,048/- and confirmed the demand of ₹ 89,600/- along with penalty and ₹ 89,600/- along with interest. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the assesse is manufacturer of corrugated boxes and they had availed the credit of the service tax paid on input services on the basis of invoices addressed to their Yeshwanthpur unit. Notice dated 23.07.2013 was issued demanding recovery/reversal of₹ 1,15,505/- availed during the period August 2008 to February 2012. The adjudicating authority after considering the reply confirmed the demand made in the notice along with equal penalty. Appeal was f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat they had shifted their factory and their Head Office from Yeshwanthpur to Doddaballapur and in 2008 their factory at Doddaballapur started functioning and in January 2010 the Yeshwanthpur factory totally stopped its operation which is clear from perusal of RG-1 of the Yeshwanthpur factory which is placed on record. He further submitted that though appellant had sent intimation to all the service providers about the shifting of their manufacturing activity from Yeshwanthpur to Doddabalapur but in spite of that some of the suppliers continued to address the invoice to Yeshwanthpur factory though the services were rendered at Doddaballapur unit. Further, it is a fact that from 2008, Doddaballapur factory started working which itself shows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is only a procedural lapse and credit cannot be denied on procedural infractions. It is his submission that it is not the case of the Department that input services have not been used and CENVAT credit has been availed at two places. Further, he submits that appellants have regularly filing the returns for Doddaballapur unit showing the availment of CENVAT credit which clearly shows that there is no suppression on the part of the appellant to avail the irregular CENVAT credit. He further submitted that the entire demand is barred by limitation because the show-cause notice was issued on 23.7.2013 pertaining to the CENVAT credit availed during the period August 2008 to February 2012. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the mentioning of the address of Yeshwanthpur factory on some of the invoices is only procedural lapse for which the CENVAT credit cannot be denied to the appellant. Further, I find that the entire demand is barred by limitation because the extended period has been invoked merely on the ground that irregular credit was detected during audit otherwise it would have gone unnoticed. Whereas the appellant has been filing the returns regularly for Doddaballapur unit and has been showing the credit availed. Appellant has also produced the copies of the returns filed by him from Doddaballapur factory under the Service Tax Rules which clearly indicate the availment of credit on the disputed invoices. In view of this, it cannot be said that the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
